XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-10-04, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 10/4/2025 10:01 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >> On 04/10/2025 13:56, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 10/4/2025 12:02 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-03, olcott  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>>> For the set of H/P pairs of   
   >>>>> decider H and input P:   
   >>>>> If H says halts then P loops   
   >>>>> If H says loops then P halts   
   >>>>> making H(P) always incorrect.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nope, it's like (from my Lisp session):   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> How is it that you can disagree with verified facts?   
   >>   
   >> The incomputability of the Halting Problem is a verified fact,   
   >   
   > Within the premise that H must report on the behavior of D.   
   > yet not when H reports on the behavior specified by its input D.   
      
   So, there you go that is the answer to "how is it that you can disagree   
   with verified facts"; you spew nonsensical, cranky garbage in which it   
   supposed to be understood that "the behavior specified by its input D"   
   and "the behavior of D" are magically two different entities.   
      
   Magical thinking.   
      
   > The behavior of D and the behavior of the input D are not   
   > the same when an input calls its own simulating termination   
   > analyzer.   
      
   Then that termination analyzer is obviously incorrect.   
      
   The machine D specifies a behavior D() which is absolutely   
   the same.   
      
   ... and so, to reiterate, that's how it goes when a pathetic crank   
   disagrees with verified facts.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)